In “all living beings” spoken of here on the way of the buddha, those with minds are “all living beings”; for the mind is living beings. Those without minds are similarly living beings; for living beings are mind. Therefore, all minds are living beings, and living beings all “have the buddha nature.” The grasses, trees and lands are mind; because they are mind, they are living beings; because they are living beings, they “have the buddha nature.” The sun, moon, and stars are mind; because they are mind, they are living beings; because they are living beings, they “have the buddha nature.”(SBGZ: Bussho)

The two Buddha's (Dogen and Daido Roshi) did not IMV intend this literally but as an expression of intimacy with all things. From Dogen's perspective it may have been specifically from this perception of the interpenetration of all phenomena. It could also have been from a serious expression of Mind Only.

kirtu wrote:The two Buddha's (Dogen and Daido Roshi) did not IMV intend this literally but as an expression of intimacy with all things. From Dogen's perspective it may have been specifically from this perception of the interpenetration of all phenomena. It could also have been from a serious expression of Mind Only.

The buddha-nature of all is an expression of universal dharmadhatu, which includes both the view of interpenetration, mind only and buddha-nature.

I don't think it has anything to do with "animism".

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Namdrol, whether you like it or not, in Zen everything has buddha nature. You can argue about it, but you can't change these teachings So what's your point?

These are only words of teachings, don't you still understand?

Typically one goes to Zen master, get's introduction, do some practice and then understand (aka realize) and verify. These teachings are not for made for intellectual debates between Zenist and Tibetan Buddhists, but to get beings realize something, and words are only like a finger. Biting the finger won't let one see where it's pointing.

I think people are getting things crossed, taking gross meanings from what is really subtle reasoning. All experience arises from within the mind and if people don't realise that then you are in big trouble! So if all that is experienced arises from mind and at its heart there is the pure buddha nature, then it follows that all we experience is Buddha nature, this does not mean the rock is buddha but it does mean that you will experience as Buddha the true nature of the rock. Dogen does not mean that inanimate objects are enlightened but he does mean that when we transcend ignorance, all inanimate experience will be experienced as Buddha as much as our experience of the animate world. So in an ultimate sense there is no seperation between anything, sentient or otherwise. Tibetan Buddhism teaches this also so there is no conflict.

AdmiralJim wrote: So if all that is experienced arises from mind and at its heart there is the pure buddha nature, then it follows that all we experience is Buddha nature, this does not mean the rock is buddha but it does mean that you will experience as Buddha the true nature of the rock.

...however no, in Zen rocks and shit on the stick and so on is buddha. And yes, there's no separation between anything because everything has buddha nature.

AdmiralJim wrote: Tibetan Buddhism teaches this also so there is no conflict.

...nope it doesn't and this was always the point in this endless debate (not only on this forum) - in TB only sentient beings can become Buddhas.

Problem is somewhere else - in Zen, when Master answers "Dry shit on the stick" when disciple asks "What is Buddha?" then it is a direct pointing to mind. It's not an explanation the same way Tibetan Buddhist will understand "sentient beings has mind and insentient, like shit on the stick not, so shit on the stick can't become Buddhas" and it should not be treated like the explanation style teachings, ie Sutra. If it is treated like explanation style teachings then meaning slips away.

And so, meaning of term buddha nature is obviously not identical everywhere.

Karma Tashi, what I have said still stands. I don't really understand what booker is trying to say or his arguements against my statement lol

...however no, in Zen rocks and shit on the stick and so on is buddha. And yes, there's no separation between anything because everything has buddha nature.

With respect to you booker I completely disagree. To simpify my previous statement further. what i am saying is if you have the mind of the buddha, then you see with the eye of the buddha, etc so your whole sensual/mental experience will be buddha. so if you possess buddha nature then everything in your experience is buddha nature. shit on a stick and zen rocks only have buddha nature if you have the buddha mind to experience it. and this logic holds whether you are following zen or tibetan buddhism, this is why i think it is beneficial to discuss scenarios rather than getting bogged down in esoteric texts and scripture quoting. reasoned debate burns away irrelevancies until you are left with truths.

I also disagree with your statement on buddha nature meaning different things. If we hold your line of reasoning then by extension, there must be a 'zen buddha' and a 'tibetan buddha' etc, this is illogical there is only buddha. Furthermore if the destination is the same, then why is the vehicle important. If you are travelling by bus into town and another person goes by car into town, the only difference will be their experience of the journey. The end result is the same though, they both reached town.

AdmiralJim wrote: With respect to you booker I completely disagree. To simpify my previous statement further. what i am saying is if you have the mind of the buddha, then you see with the eye of the buddha, etc so your whole sensual/mental experience will be buddha. so if you possess buddha nature then everything in your experience is buddha nature. shit on a stick and zen rocks only have buddha nature if you have the buddha mind to experience it. and this logic holds whether you are following zen or tibetan buddhism, this is why i think it is beneficial to discuss scenarios rather than getting bogged down in esoteric texts and scripture quoting. reasoned debate burns away irrelevancies until you are left with truths.

No problem if you disagree. I only said what I've been taught by Zen Masters I worked with.

What you say about BN is relative: If one is Buddha then one sees/experience everything having buddha nature. I was saying a bit different: buddha nature is not relative, and whether you are realized or not it doesn't matter: everything has buddha nature, always had it, and always will have it. And there's no real logic behind it and infact using logic/mind to discover buddha nature goes as far as to finish with the mind-work, and start to perceive directly. Or at least try to. That's then Zen style I was taught (Son to be precise), the direct experiencing, mind can go on a rest, or as they even say, if you have the mind, better give it away to a nearby passing dog.

AdmiralJim wrote:I also disagree with your statement on buddha nature meaning different things. If we hold your line of reasoning then by extension, there must be a 'zen buddha' and a 'tibetan buddha' etc, this is illogical there is only buddha. Furthermore if the destination is the same, then why is the vehicle important. If you are travelling by bus into town and another person goes by car into town, the only difference will be their experience of the journey. The end result is the same though, they both reached town.

You have to ask Tibetan Buddhists, because that is their reasoning (that is, you don't get the same Buddha in Zen and in Dzogchen for example) I'm serious, I didn't made this up

Last edited by booker on Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AdmiralJim wrote: what i am saying is if you have the mind of the buddha, then you see with the eye of the buddha, etc so your whole sensual/mental experience will be buddha. so if you possess buddha nature then everything in your experience is buddha nature. shit on a stick and zen rocks only have buddha nature if you have the buddha mind to experience it. and this logic holds whether you are following zen or tibetan buddhism, this is why i think it is beneficial to discuss scenarios rather than getting bogged down in esoteric texts and scripture quoting. reasoned debate burns away irrelevancies until you are left with truths.

Since everything experienced is a projection of mind, a form of mind, and "mind is buddha" in Zen, any experienced object is an experience of mind i.e. buddha nature. I don't think anyone would disagree here.

However, by extension, in an interconnected and interdependent Universe, duality and multiplicity is unreal. Hence, the nature of one thing must by extension be the nature of all things. This is the implication.

If only the former and not the latter is true, then becoming a Buddha is simply realising subjective reality to be a projection of one's mind. While this may be interesting, it says nothing at all about the ultimate nature of things beyond our projections. It is, then, not worthy of the term "unsurpassed".

booker wrote:

AdmiralJim wrote: Tibetan Buddhism teaches this also so there is no conflict.

...nope it doesn't and this was always the point in this endless debate (not only on this forum) - in TB only sentient beings can become Buddhas.

The difference is in the use of the term "Buddha". Buddha can refer to, among other things, both the ultimate state of reality and to one who fully realises this state without any remainder of ignorance about it. Only sentient beings can become the latter in both Zen and Vajrayana.

AdmiralJim wrote: Tibetan Buddhism teaches this also so there is no conflict.

...nope it doesn't and this was always the point in this endless debate (not only on this forum) - in TB only sentient beings can become Buddhas.

The difference is in the use of the term "Buddha". Buddha can refer to, among other things, both the ultimate state of reality and to one who fully realises this state without any remainder of ignorance about it. Only sentient can become the latter in both Zen and Vajrayana.

No problem, I'm really not willing to argue with you. but tbh only sentient beings have problem with ignorance, with suffering, with existence, with Buddhas, with Zen and Varjayana and so forth. Everything else is already fully enlightened - in a state of perfect peace and ease with what is It's only sentient being vison about Buddha the problem: oh, the rock has no mind, so can't become Buddha and teach me highest vehicle. Ok, it can't teach Dharma like Shakyamuni or anything, like some extraordinary being, but is able to teach rock-Dharma, if one is able to be open enough to receive it. Previously there was about truth - there you go, the truth of rock is already present, does not need any further realizing by the rock.

Since everything experienced is a projection of mind, a form of mind, and "mind is buddha" in Zen, any experienced object is an experience of mind i.e. buddha nature. I don't think anyone would disagree here.

However, by extension, in an interconnected and interdependent Universe, duality and multiplicity is unreal. Hence, the nature of one thing must by extension be the nature of all things. This is the implication.

you just repeated what i said in my original post but in a different way lol

And for your info booker, I took refuge with the karma kagyu school of tibetan buddhism, but i also meet up with a local zen group to practice zazen and listen to dharma talks by various zen masters. wisdom is wisdom, irrespective of source.